Search for: "U.S. v. Alva*"
Results 741 - 756
of 756
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Feb 2008, 8:55 pm
This time around I’m hosting Blawg Review on National Inventor’s Day (U.S.). [read post]
21 Aug 2011, 7:57 pm
See Villegas v. [read post]
6 Mar 2019, 5:30 am
It’s not Marbury v. [read post]
23 May 2014, 11:37 am
Like many ordinary Latin Americans across those decades, Guatemalans could choose between two unappealing alternatives: U.S. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 10:35 am
Stern v. [read post]
19 Jan 2022, 5:01 am
Hurn v. [read post]
4 Feb 2008, 11:20 am
King Billable Hour v. [read post]
31 Jan 2015, 8:24 pm
(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2015) Professor James Stewart, of the Faculty of Law at the University of British Columbia, has produced a valuable on line symposium: Business and Human Rights: Next Steps. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 7:18 am
Failing to receive a prompt response, Geldon added “[v]ery telling that you don’t even respond to text messages now that you don’t need help getting confirmed. [read post]
11 May 2022, 8:51 pm
In 2020, in the In re: Robinhood Outage Litigation, the U.S. [read post]
2 Dec 2018, 6:58 pm
Yes, of course, he severely criticized prior administrations in language that U.S. voters have become more accustomed to since 2016. [read post]
22 Sep 2023, 7:16 am
As the Supreme Court put it in United States v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 8:59 am
Smotherman, Reading Between the Wines: Granholm v. [read post]
15 Jun 2022, 5:24 pm
The rate of pay required for non-exempt employees is the regular rate during the pay period the leave is taken if the employer uses the workweek method, or alternatively the employer can use a 90-day lookback for determining the average regular rate, that is generally the same as with the normal state paid sick leave law (unless the employer has any flat-sum bonuses involved, in which case the employer will need to use the Alvarado-method of calculating the regular rate, as detailed here). [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 9:05 pm
See generally Brown Shoe Co. v. [read post]
13 Apr 2024, 3:33 pm
Prelude to Litigation Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) was a widely used direct α-adrenergic agonist used as a medication to control cold symptoms and to suppress appetite for weight loss.[1] In 1972, an over-the-counter (OTC) Advisory Review Panel considered the safety and efficacy of PPA-containing nasal decongestant medications, leading, in 1976, to a recommendation that the agency label these medications as “generally recognized as safe and effective. [read post]
